(PC) Rockemore v. Vasquez

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SHAUNTEZ K. ROCKEMORE, No. 1:21-cv-01339 GSA (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST TO STIPULATE AS PREMATURELY FILED 13 v. (ECF No. 65) 14 A. VASQUEZ, et al., ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST 15 Defendants. FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE AS NOT RELEVANT TO THIS CASE 16 (ECF No. 68) 17

18 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, has filed this civil 19 rights action seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States 20 Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 21 Plaintiff has filed a request to stipulate (ECF No. 65) and a request for judicial notice 22 (ECF No. 68). For the reasons stated below, both motions will be denied. 23 I. PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST TO STIPULATE TO AUTHENTICITY 24 In Plaintiff’s request to stipulate, Plaintiff requests that Defendants stipulate to the 25 authenticity of the official and medical records Plaintiff which Plaintiff submitted as Exhibits A 26 and B in Plaintiff’s opposition to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. See ECF No 67. 27 Presumably, both parties have access to these records, which would allow all to readily dispute 28 1 the authenticity of any records in question. Further, to date Defendants have not filed an 2 objection based on a lack of authentication to the records identified by Plaintiff in this motion. 3 For these reasons, Plaintiff’s request that Defendants stipulate to the authenticity of Plaintiff’s 4 official and medical records that are attached as Exhibits A and B to his opposition (see ECF No. 5 67 at 45-88) will be denied as prematurely filed. Should the authenticity of records provided by 6 any party become an issue during these proceedings, the Court will formally address the matter at 7 that time. In the meantime, Defendants are encouraged to address this issue by filing a formal 8 response that either objects to, or agrees to, stipulate to the authentication of the above referenced 9 records for the limited purpose of their use by Plaintiff in opposing Defendant’s Summary 10 Judgment Motion filed by Defendants on June 3, 2024. (ECF No. 45). 11 II. PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE 12 In Plaintiff’s request for judicial notice, Plaintiff requests the Court to take formal notice 13 of an order in Shauntez v. Correctional Officer V. Aguirre, No. 5:21-cv-00550 VAP (ADS) out of 14 the Central District of California. See ECF No. 68. The order indicates that Plaintiff settled that 15 matter with the Defendants in that case for a monetary amount. See id. at 4-7. 16 Courts “may take notice of proceedings in other courts, both within and without the 17 federal judicial system, if those proceedings have a direct relation to matters at issue.” United 18 States ex rel. Robinson Rancheria Citizens Council v. Borneo, Inc., 971 F.2d 244, 248 (9th Cir. 19 1992) (collecting cases). The document Plaintiff has provided in the Central District case does 20 not appear to have any relationship to the instant matter. Moreover, Plaintiff fails to identify any 21 direct relation that the Central District matter has to this case. See generally ECF No. 68 (motion 22 for judicial notice). For this reason, the motion will be denied as not having been shown to be 23 relevant to this case. Given, however, that the Central District order clearly indicates that 24 Plaintiff also goes by “Shauntez Kuioun Rockemore” (see id. at 5) (case caption page of Central 25 District order), the Court will take judicial notice of this fact and direct the Clerk of Court to add 26 this name to all Plaintiff’s cases that have been filed in this district. 27 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 28 1. The Court takes herein sua sponte takes judicial notice of the fact that Plaintiff is also 1 known as “Shauntez Kuioun Rockemore” (see ECF No. 68 at 5) (Central District of California 2 order); 3 2. The Clerk of Court shall update all CM/ECF records to reflect that Plaintiff is also 4 known as “Shauntez Kuioun Rockemore”; 5 3. Plaintiff’s motion requesting that Defendants stipulate to the authenticity of official 6 and medical records that were submitted in Exhibits A and B1 of his opposition (ECF No. 67) is 7 DENIED as PREMATURELY FILED, and 8 4. Plaintiff’s request that the Court take judicial notice of Rockemore v. Correctional 9 Officer V. Aguirre, No. 5:21-cv-00550 VAP (ADS) (ECF No. 68) is DENIED as NOT HAVING 10 BEEN SHOWN TO BE RELEVANT to this matter. See, e.g., United States ex rel. Robinson 11 Rancheria Citizens Council v. Borneo, Inc., 971 F.2d 244, 248 (9th Cir. 1992). 12 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. 14

15 Dated: April 2, 2025 /s/ Gary S. Austin UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 16

19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

28 1 See ECF No. 67 at 45-88 (Plaintiff’s referenced official and medical records in his opposition).